It looks so much like a Murphy, I thought it was one the first time I saw it!
I resent that and definitely do not resemble it!
(sly movie reference)Yeah, that resonates. I was more playing along the lines of -- the whole RV line looks nearly identical to me. But I use a plane as a travel appliance, so I view them all through the numbers lens. I know others cherish the acrobatics or efficiency or ability to do a flight of five overhead break formation landing and terrorize the local untowered field like locusts.
To me, though, every RV may as well be named Blue Steel, Ferrari, or Le Tigre, because this new Magnum looks like more of the same to me.
(That twin RV6 looked interesting. I understand Van poo-poohed it. Shame.)
says the man who flies something that looks like it came out of the rear end of chicken!
I was waiting for that… hey at least it wasn’t designed with a straight edge.says the man who flies something that looks like it came out of the rear end of chicken!
The RV15 looks a good bit bigger. Those are 26’s in the pic @tsts4 posted of it
Good day to you, sir. I said GOOD DAY!
Yeah - not helping your case. Visually, RV's look exceptionally boring. Kind of like a 172 of the experimental world.Huh?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Interesting to mix spring gear + shocks. I like it, best of both worlds, the freedom for the gear to translate - while keeping the big bounces to a minimum. There's the innovation I wanted to see.
Those two are nice examples but I stand by my word. They aren't hideous or ugly, they are just blah.... Somehow though the Rocket and F1 seem to transform them into lookers. I know the F1 isn't technically an RV but its close enough and looks great!
I would argue that they look like a straight wing T-18.
Because we're expressing an opinion on a pertinent topic?
could be an io-540
could be an io-540
One can dream. A 4 seat with 260 HP would be pretty awesome. It seems a bit small for a 4 seater, but it seems a bit large for a 2 seater... Maybe it's a 3 or 4 seater. With the 390 it would be ok.
Or as I refer to examples of the breed: JAFTHA (Just Another F****** Tin Homebuilt Airplane). Or "Vancan," as a late friend used to say.
If you want a IO-540, install a IO-540.
If you want at tailwheel RV-12, build a tailwheel RV-12
If you want manual flaps, install manual flaps.
One would assume that they went with a somewhat thinner airfoil which would offset at least some of the strut drag. But if they added some camber for better STOLishness, then that offsets the drag from a thinner profile.
It's more than that. a 540 on a 2 seater is ridiculous. I want it to be a spacious 4 seater with room for luggage - and a 540. Doesn't appear that this iteration is that, but it's really kinda hard to tell. It seems too big for a 2 seater.
But the people around the RVs are those who own one themselves or who are interested in building one. Us other types get the babes and the kids...
Moms *and* Dads, and the dads usually want to sit in the airplane, too.Probably better stated that you get the woman with the kids i.e. "the package deal"
Again with that engine? It burns 18+gallons per hour in cruise. And it's only 240hp. Not to mention some CG issues that would arise at this stage in development. And the cost of the engine alone is probably in the 80k neighborhood if not more. Van's knows better.I was hoping for electric retractable slats and double slotted flaps to really push the envelope forward but oh well.
The design is growing on me but I really don’t like the looks of the stubby nose when viewed from the side. A PBS TP100 would fix that nicely.
I think we have already reached that point affordability wise. If you design an airplane that takes considerable skill and equipment to build you further restrict that potential market. They have found a sweet spot of fabrication and profit that gives them the widest market. I think you could still build an RV7 for under 100k if you are willing to do the work your self, stick with minimum VFR avionics, and source a used engine to be rebuilt or used as is. Of course there are plenty of aircraft plans out there if you want to build from scratch and trade your time for money.
you hit it right on, the homebuilt market has changed over the years. in the seventies and eighties, the homebuilt group was building unique, new concept, cheap, or just to see if it could be done. the build process was a lot of times the main goal as much as having an aircraft. it was mostly built from plans or very basic kits, by people that wanted to build to build and have something different. that has mostly changed to a group that wants faster, quick build, new everything, and the newest and greatest gadgets out there. the group as a whole has more money and less time that the past. there is less and less "experimental" in experimental now days. they want put tab b in slot a and don't even dare to add bracket c unless the manual calls for it. when I built my RV-4 there really wasn't a manual, just read the plans and try to figure it out. it is somewhat funny sometimes what some of the people call vans support about. I would rather have the old days, but it is what it is. this shift has caused prices to climb, and drive out the unique designs. most builders now, would cringe at the idea of using a used engine, they will gladly shell out 50k for a brand new engine. its amazing how many RV's are built with a full IFR panel with a garmin 750 by a VFR only pilot that will never get an instrument rating. it is what it is and the market follows that.
